[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070815" target="_blank">60 Years of Love</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> August 15, 2007

India and Pakistan both celebrated their diamond anniversaries this week. Both countries have been independent from the British Empire for 60 whole years. <br> <br>The two nations celebrate their independence on the same day (August 15) because the separation of India from the Empire was also the day Islamic Pakistan separated from Hindu India. And it\'s been peaceful and respectful co-existence ever since.

[kevlarman]

Newsbot wrote:

India and Pakistan both celebrated their diamond anniversaries this week. Both countries have been independent from the British Empire for 60 whole years.
<br>
<br>The two nations celebrate their independence on the same day (August 15) because the separation of India from the Empire was also the day Islamic Pakistan separated from Hindu India. And it\'s been peaceful and respectful co-existence ever since.

Don't those countries point their nuclear weapons at each other and don't they get into the occassional dust up from time to time?

[sasquatch2]

kevlarman

Quote:

Don't those countries point their nuclear weapons at each other and don't they get into the occassional dust up from time to time?

Yeah but what's a little open warefare among friends.

The Sino-Soviet border has many times experienced these misunderstandings by those "franternal socialist allies." Been real quiet since the 80's though.........

[kevlarman]

Aaaah... that's right, Pakistan has the bomb. I knew that but you wouldn't think that Americans did if you talk to the folks down here. Even the ones who watch the news. FOX news.

This article reminds me that I should laugh VERY, very hard whenever a American co-worker looks me seriously in the eye and proclaims that we're over there to make sure weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons doesn't get into the hands of Muslim extremists... Mind you, Dubya says the same damn thing... I feel like asking them (but I don't because I don't want the ensuing debate to follow to deal with...) whether they consider Pakistan a Islamic regime or not and if that's the reason they're over in Iraq, then why don't they go into Pakistan? Why didn't they STAY in Afghanistan? Outside of oil and unfinished business, why are they in IRAQ?

It's hard to tell whether it's feigned ignorance or genuine ignorance on Dubya's part. I know it's genuine ignorance on most Americans parts. You know, if you want to rule the world, you should KNOW a little something, something about it in the FIRST place !

Lord help them though if they ever get drawn in a war there. And it might not even have to come to that. Musharoff (spelling) and his regime are on very shaky ground. The Islamic fundamentalists have the popular support and soon, the control of nuclear weapons.

[EmperorLiam]

"And it\'s been peaceful and respectful co-existence ever since."

JJ was using sarcasm. Something that really never should be used in text based communications.


Lets keep this about India and Pakistan.


PS: I hate Pakistan, and although India's the worlds biggest democracy, I consider them the stupidest voters. My impression of them, "Durrr, lets vote for the one related to Gandhi!" That is all.

[kevlarman]

I thought talking about Musharaff's political problems in PAKISTAN was keeping it to topic

[EmperorLiam]

Dubya has nothing todo with Pakistan... he went there like once, otherwise US has left them alone.

[kevlarman]

No... but read closer. Who is Musharaff (spelling?) And once you've figured that out please try and tell me that HE doesn't have anything to do with Pakistan and by defacto... this thread

[Psudo]

kevlarman wrote:

Pakistan has the bomb

I tend to bring up this point when people say we should focus on capturing Osama Bin Laden. Regardless of Iraq, invading Pakistan to extract Osama is suicidal insanity.

kevlarman wrote:

Why didn't they STAY in Afghanistan?

The USA still has troops in Afghanistan. We did stay.

[kevlarman]

Of course it would be suicide to go into Pakistan. But no more so than say... going into Iraq and drawing in THOUSANDS of insurgents from outside Iraq to fight the "big-bad-evil" Infidels. All America is accomplishing is a.) finishing up the Bush family business in there of getting back at Saddam and getting OUR business interests into THEIR oil. Plain and simple really.
b.) America is a HUGE recruiting tool for theTaliban and Al' Queida (spelling?) progoganda machine.
c.) Establishing a staging base for the next leg of the invasion of the Middle East, Iran.

I know America is in Afghanistan, but in very small numbers, not enough to effectively take out the Taliban there. They really needed to STAY in there full force. Leave Iraq alone and possibly go into Pakistan. Which by the way is about to go to the Taliban anyways since Musharoff's such a prick to his people and the USA has a long history of going into a region and supporting the biggest, baddest prick to do their bidding. What I'm saying is we're in there knee deep already, why don't we do the job RIGHT and screw Pakistan, invade it anyways? If you think we're keeping the nuclear weapons out of the Islamic Fundamentalists by not invading well, you'd only be partially right seeing as their people are gearing up overthrow him anyways and replace him with, you guessed it, an Islamic Fundamentalist governement which is backed by the warlords of both Afghanistan AND Pakistan. Either way, we go in their at our conveniance or theirs. But we'll have to go in anyways.

[Murray_Smith]

kevlarman wrote:

Of course it would be suicide to go into Pakistan. But no more so than say... going into Iraq and drawing in THOUSANDS of insurgents from outside Iraq to fight the "big-bad-evil" Infidels.

Argument error: Tangential/irrelevant/idiotic.
It wasn't suicidal to go into Iraq. Stupid, yes. Suicidal, no. Is a different flag flying over Washington, D.C.? I rest my case.

Quote:

All America is accomplishing is a.) finishing up the Bush family business in there of getting back at Saddam and getting OUR business interests into THEIR oil. Plain and simple really.

Then... why are we still there? Saddam is worm's meat, and we easily could have taken "our" oil by now.

Quote:

b.) America is a HUGE recruiting tool for the Taliban and Al Qaeda propaganda machine.

Like they've ALWAYS been. Also, I fixed your spelling.

Quote:

c.) Establishing a staging base for the next leg of the invasion of the Middle East, Iran.

Bush has less than 18 months left in office. If he even tried to make a case for invasion, he'd be laughed out of the room.

Quote:

I know America is in Afghanistan, but in very small numbers, not enough to effectively take out the Taliban there. They really needed to STAY in there full force. Leave Iraq alone and possibly go into Pakistan. Which by the way is about to go to the Taliban anyways since Musharoff's such a prick to his people and the USA has a long history of going into a region and supporting the biggest, baddest prick to do their bidding. What I'm saying is we're in there knee deep already, why don't we do the job RIGHT and screw Pakistan, invade it anyways? If you think we're keeping the nuclear weapons out of the Islamic Fundamentalists by not invading well, you'd only be partially right seeing as their people are gearing up overthrow him anyways and replace him with, you guessed it, an Islamic Fundamentalist governement which is backed by the warlords of both Afghanistan AND Pakistan. Either way, we go in their at our conveniance or theirs. But we'll have to go in anyways.

The thing is, if we commit an act of war against Pakistan, i.e. invasion, Pakistan will probably fight to defend itself. Since Pakistan has access to nuclear weapons, that can only mean BAD THINGS for the aggressor, which would be us.

[Psudo]

kevlarman wrote:

I know America is in Afghanistan, but in very small numbers, not enough to effectively take out the Taliban there. They really needed to STAY in there full force.

We have about 19,500 troops in Afghanistan. How many did we have before when we were in "full force"? How many would you want us to have today?

kevlarman wrote:

Leave Iraq alone and possibly go into Pakistan.

Insurgent bombers, while very dangerous, don't approach the level of danger posed by Pakistani nukes toward an invading force. Has any nation in history ever invaded a nation with a functioning nuclear arsenal? I can't think of any.

[kevlarman]

Psudo wrote:

We have about 19,500 troops in Afghanistan. How many did we have before when we were in "full force"? How many would you want us to have today?

How many more soldiers in Afghanistan? I'm not the expert, but most of the experts, including those with experiance in the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan had suggested more troops. I'll leave them to answer that for me. But it always struck me as funny and yet so, so stupid how most of the troops are in Iraq. If your enemy comes from a specific region of the world yet, the bulk of your armed forces are NOT where they are. Is that smart?

Psudo wrote:

Insurgent bombers, while very dangerous, don't approach the level of danger posed by Pakistani nukes toward an invading force. Has any nation in history ever invaded a nation with a functioning nuclear arsenal? I can't think of any.

And yet that still is going to be your problem and that of your supporters who fight there, including us, the Canadians and the British. But that doesn't mean you walk away from that. It's a problem now that could be manageable or it could be untenable if left to long. The current regime there will not survive for long in Pakistan. So something must be done. It wasn't a hard sell how America just HAD TO go to Iraq when it truly wasn't needed then. Why is doing the RIGHT thing so hard to sell?

There are ways of going into Pakistan without alienating the current regime. But being as American foreign policy is shoot first, "oops" later, I wouldn't expect you to know that. Or think along those lines. The main support for the terrorists in Pakistan are also, it just so happens, the current leader of Pakistan's big pain in the ass now. Maybe, just maybe, you work with your ally to get rid of a common foe, lessen his vulnerability and yours in the meantime. Also, the American populace could likely be sold a war on the actual enemy unlike the war on terror in Iraq.

No about getting that oil so easily...

If you could get your oil so easily in Iraq, then why is that a tenth rate army is completely slowing your army's efforts? That oil you could so easily get, is not so easily gotten. Of course you could just nuke your way to victory. But I doubt that the American leaders would be so short-sighted. Maybe the current administrations supporters are but not the leaders. Even if they act foolish from time to time.

Sure the American army could win, but will the people support that for much longer? Maybe the war should've been fought with more INTELLIGENCE and a lot less BRAVADO.

Who knew a bunch of camel-jockey's could slow down the greatest military machine in the world to the point that victory isn't even assured

[kevlarman]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Quote:

I know America is in Afghanistan, but in very small numbers, not enough to effectively take out the Taliban there. They really needed to STAY in there full force. Leave Iraq alone and possibly go into Pakistan. Which by the way is about to go to the Taliban anyways since Musharoff's such a prick to his people and the USA has a long history of going into a region and supporting the biggest, baddest prick to do their bidding. What I'm saying is we're in there knee deep already, why don't we do the job RIGHT and screw Pakistan, invade it anyways? If you think we're keeping the nuclear weapons out of the Islamic Fundamentalists by not invading well, you'd only be partially right seeing as their people are gearing up overthrow him anyways and replace him with, you guessed it, an Islamic Fundamentalist governement which is backed by the warlords of both Afghanistan AND Pakistan. Either way, we go in their at our conveniance or theirs. But we'll have to go in anyways.

The thing is, if we commit an act of war against Pakistan, i.e. invasion, Pakistan will probably fight to defend itself. Since Pakistan has access to nuclear weapons, that can only mean BAD THINGS for the aggressor, which would be us.

Wow, YOU THINK? Of course it will mean bad things for the aggressor, but since that hasn't really stopped American troops from oil well gaurd duty I find it hard to swallow that would stop the current American administration from doing a similiar action in Pakistan. But this time, they DO have WMD'S. And there's a strong chance the Islamic Fundamentalists WILL gain power there soon. Those were some of the great reasons for going to Iraq, why walk away from that logic now?

As to my spelling...thanks but if my spelling is the worst of my worries, then so be it. Geography and understanding the world your country wants to rule is a distinct problem of you and yours...

Still, you may wish that DUBYA hadn't spent most of your money going after Saddam who "might" have and yet "didn't" end up having WMD's. Especially short-sighted given that DUBYA'S handlers already knew that Pakistan did and that the terrorists were calling Pakistan and Afghanistan home. Oh well... "oops"

History may go on to tell of a lot of Americans who wished they had of impeached DUBYA and tossed his supporters. Only history will tell for sure. I wish you all good fortune. You WILL be living in interesting times. I don't wish ill for America, I live here and I know that the majority of Americans are smarter, more noble and better suited to rule than DUBYA. I just wish to the good Lord above that the current administration and their supporters sure hadn't have blundered so damn bad since all the ghosts of your current actions WILL come home to roost someday.

I really hope the west keeps on India's good side. We're going to need them soon.

[ejacksonian]

You know, this is a bit off-topic, but this is the first time I've seen a conservative arguing against against another conservative.